League Reconstruction 20/21 season

[RandomGuy.]

1 minute ago, JTS98 said:

3) That's applying 1980s logic to the current situation. No matter how well-run a non-Old Firm club is, nobody is going to beat them to the title over 38 games. It's not going to happen. We have 35 years of evidence of that. Not only are clubs not winning it, but they're not even getting close to winning it, even in an era where meany of them have spent their way into heavy debt. I disagree with you that it is realistic for Aberdeen or Hearts or anybody else to build towards winning the Scottish Premiership in its current format. You can't keep a good team together long enough to do that.

Aberdeen wouldve won the title in 15/16 if theyd actually intended to challenge for it.

A happiness to simply finish best of the rest, and consequent lack of investment in the squad, ripped that chance away from them.

I fully believe a chance like that will come about, itll just be whether the club is willing to take that chance and then build on it.

Rewarding clubs for finishing 4th with a potential league title would just encourage accepting that.

[Dons_1988]

2 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

His entire schtick when joining was to catch Rangers and Celtic m8.

Tell me where he says catch them, genius.

[Sparticus]

9 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

Like I said from the beginning, I understand that almost nobody agrees with me.

However, Scottish football is a lot bigger than just Celtic, and the interests of the whole would be much better served by a format like this, in my view.

We've been conditioned, like fans in many countries, to accept that the way football is is the way football has to be. That's not the case. The old formats and ideas that were designed for an amateur sport in the late 19th century are clearly no longer working in 21st century football. Football needs radical change to reinvigorate competition, which now only meaningfully exists for supporters of a pretty tiny minority of football clubs worldwide.

I know people disagree with me. But I think play-offs are essentially the only way. Wage caps etc are not going to happen.

Most leagues have dominating teams.they simply have more money as they're in the middle of the most densely populated areas.Not much about it is being great football clubs.

You'll get a perfect storm on occasion when the top teams have a low point and teams underneath are at a high (Leicester).

There's no answer really, this is football, it isnt fair.

[RandomGuy.]

2 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

Tell me where he says catch them, genius.

What do you think "level the playing field" with Celtic and Rangers means when you cant directly reduce their income?

If its not "get enough income to catch them", then I'd be surprised. 

Edited May 7, 2020 by RandomGuy.

[Bohemian]

3 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

 

I did say “marginally”

 

You did which at the end of day wont make a difference. I wouldn't mind more teams in the premiership, certainly liven this place up.  Unfortunately I cant see us getting away from any set up that doesn't have 4 effin OF games...

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Not this myth agsin.

20 players started league games for DU that season..

 

I’m sure I remember reading it was 16 but I think that was in TAG so wasn’t authoritative .

 

Is this one of those Zombie statistics?

 

Could any Arabs of a certain age elucidate on the matter?

 

Apologies if I got this wrong

 

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, RandomGuy. said:

Aberdeen wouldve won the title in 15/16 if theyd actually intended to challenge for it.

A happiness to simply finish best of the rest, and consequent lack of investment in the squad, ripped that chance away from them.

I fully believe a chance like that will come about, itll just be whether the club is willing to take that chance and then build on it.

Rewarding clubs for finishing 4th with a potential league title would just encourage accepting that.

Celtic won the league that season by 15 points. You really think Aberdeen could have made up 15 points just by, how, trying a bit harder?

Telling that the first example you use, so I suppose you think the best, is a team finishing 15 points off the pace.

I suppose my question to you is what do we lose by trying this?

You insists there is absolutely no way St Johnstone could ever win a few games at the end of the season to be champions. Ok, that's your opinion. But surely it would be better for St Johnstone to have the chance to do that than to have no chance at all, as they have at the moment? I don't see what St Johnstone or Hearts or Ross County or anybody loses here.

And I don't buy the suggestion that it would stop clubs investing in their footballing operations. For example, the NRL has used this format for years and its clubs still invest in players and coaching and scouting. The fundamental idea that having a good team makes you more likely to win remains the same. And, as mentioned above, clubs will still want to qualify for and compete in European competitions.

[Guest JTS98]

5 minutes ago, Sparticus said:

There's no answer really, this is football, it isnt fair.

Exactly. So why not harness a little of that unfairness to make it more competitive?

[RandomGuy.]

2 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

Celtic won the league that season by 15 points. You really think Aberdeen could have made up 15 points just by, how, trying a bit harder?

I just had a thought that was pretty much a wastecoatwilly thought, so I'm leaving this conversation now and never coming back.

[Guest JTS98]

3 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

I just had a thought that was pretty much a wastecoatwilly thought, so I'm leaving this conversation now and never coming back.

?

I have no idea what that means.

Fair enough.

All I did was ask you to back up your point.

You said Aberdeen, who finished five victories off the pace, could have challenged if they had 'intended' to. To me that seems to suggest effort.

Edited May 7, 2020 by JTS98

[Dons_1988]

1 minute ago, RandomGuy. said:

What do you think "level the playing field" with Celtic and Rangers means when you cant directly reduce their income?

If its not "get enough income to catch them", then I'd be surprised. 

He means bridging the gap. He sees European football as a means to bridge the gap in income.

But quite clearly we can't catch their income, but bridging the gap as much as we can makes us as competitive as we can be. This should really be the goal of any club attempting to compete at the top end.

[RandomGuy.]

3 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

?

I have no idea what that means.

Fair enough.

All I did was ask you to back up your point.

You said Aberdeen, who finished five victories off the pace, could have challenged if they had 'intended' to. To me that seems to suggest effort.

He reckons Celtics financial advantage has zero effect on the title, it's simply Celtics "will to win" that is greater than everyone else.

I've realised that's a path I'm heading down here.

3 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

He means bridging the gap. He sees European football as a means to bridge the gap in income.

But quite clearly we can't catch their income, but bridging the gap as much as we can makes us as competitive as we can be. This should really be the goal of any club attempting to compete at the top end.

Which is literally the point I'm trying to make.

Teams like Aberdeen will benefit more from steadily building up their own clubs to challenge, rather than be handing chances of the title for finishing 4th every season, IMO.

[Dons_1988]

Just now, RandomGuy. said:

Which is literally the point I'm trying to make.

Teams like Aberdeen will benefit more from steadily building up their own clubs to challenge, rather than be handing chances of the title for finishing 4th every season, IMO.

Well that's a fair point.

But 'Cormack is pumping in millions to catch the OF' doesn't make it.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

I just had a thought that was pretty much a wastecoatwilly thought, so I'm leaving this conversation now and never coming back.

Remarkable self awareness

Well done.

[Guest JTS98]

4 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Teams like Aberdeen will benefit more from steadily building up their own clubs to challenge, rather than be handing chances of the title for finishing 4th every season, IMO.

In an ideal world I'd agree with you. But I think we now have plenty of evidence that this is simply unrealistic.

An Aberdeen side seriously threatening Celtic would be broken up by Celtic or other clubs buying their players. That leaves aside that it's extremely difficult to see how you overcome a wealth gap like Celtic's over a 38-game season in the first place.

Teams have been trying for a long time. Not only in Scotland.

Examples like Leicester don't really count in this discussion because English football operates at a level where all clubs can afford excellent players and excellent coaches. A perfect storm is a viable idea there. In leagues like Scotland that's not really doable. Finances dictate that you can't really get enough quality in one of the other sides, and if you do it will soon be gone.

Miller and McLeish at Aberdeen these days would play one season together then be off to sides at the top end of the Championship. Probably before winning anything.

[Morton Supporter]

I’m sceptical that anyone who says they can’t stand playing the same teams four times actually goes to the games.

I’m by no means any sort of super-fan myself, but all I want is to go to Cappielow and hopefully see Morton play well and win, within a competitive context. The fact I may have seen the opposition in October isn’t in my thought process and I find it bizarre it would have any bearing on anyone else’s feeling about whether they wanted to go and see their team that week.

Any reconstruction to create bigger leagues solely to move away from a double-round robin would be dreadful as:

(1) the higher the stakes, the bigger the interest from fans, which obviously creates revenue and, not to be underestimated, memories.

(2) the knock-on effect is to weaken and reduce competition within every single division below that sits within the pyramid.

Ergo, smaller divisions are better and, in the absence of radical changes to levelise spending, we should be wary of any reconstruction.

I think it only needs tinkering, specifically on the hellacious Premiership playoff format, and potentially moving the SPFL’s 12-team league to the bottom tier rather than at the ‘Premiership’ level which is a misnomer when it’s our largest league.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

4 minutes ago, Morton Supporter said:

I’m sceptical that anyone who says they can’t stand playing the same teams four times actually goes to the games.

I’m by no means any sort of super-fan myself, but all I want is to go to Cappielow and hopefully see Morton play well and win, within a competitive context. The fact I may have seen the opposition in October isn’t in my thought process and I find it bizarre it would have any bearing on anyone else’s feeling about whether they wanted to go and see their team that week.

There will be a difference in perspective between normal fans who generally only go to home games and the ones who go to most of the away games on this.

 

 

 

[Sparticus]

1 hour ago, JTS98 said:

Exactly. So why not harness a little of that unfairness to make it more competitive?

I see where your coming from but as someone said earlier, that would just encourage clubs to stop chasing and stop improving.

Really is up to clubs to get out and be the best they can be.

[true_rover]

There will be a difference in perspective between normal fans who generally only go to home games and the ones who go to most of the away games on this.
 
 
 

As an example, I can't imagine Hearts fans would suddenly become more excited about replacing games with Hibs, Aberdeen and the Glasgow 2 with games against Morton, Ayr, Queen of the South and Raith Rovers - even with the novelty of it being less times a season.

[Scotty Tunbridge]

The last few pages here have been mind numbing stuff.